Get compact pending review summaries for a team ID to identify work awaiting integrator approval before it can be accepted.
List compact pending review summaries for one exact team ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.8Input schema / properties / team_idAdded value: +{
+ "title": "Team Id",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "team_id"
+]Output schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +trueOutput schema / propertiesRemoved value: -{
- "result": {
- "items": {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "array"
- }
-}Output schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "result"
-]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"list_pending_reviewsOutput"New value: +"list_pending_reviewsDictOutput"v0.2.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some useful context by saying the results are 'compact' summaries and that matching uses 'one exact team ID', implying a strict, read-only lookup. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, empty-result behavior, or any error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter list tool with an output schema, the core calling information is present. However, it lacks guidance on when this tool is appropriate relative to several closely related siblings, and it does not clarify what 'pending review' means in the workflow context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the lone parameter ('team ID') and adds 'exact' to indicate strict matching, which is helpful. Yet it gives no format, source, or validation details for team_id, so the compensation is only partial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies a clear resource ('compact pending review summaries') scoped to 'one exact team ID'. It is distinct enough from sibling tools like get_team_board or review_event, though it does not explicitly name any alternative to differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for fetching pending reviews for a specific team, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over siblings like get_attention_board, get_team_board, or review_event. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.